tesla was a virgin

Good point about the Hubble taking a pic of the moon.
It just might have the resolution power,especially since there is no atmosphere to contend with,to at least make out the shadows cast by the left behind Apollo equipment.
C'mon NASA! Point that thing toward the moon!
Brian



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2008 02:25PM by Raw1228.

kratom712 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tesla was a virgin

Haha, maybe, maybe not?

Regarding Nicola Tesla's work on a "dynamic theory of gravity":

"The bulk of the theory was developed between 1892 and 1894, during the period that he was conducting experiments with high frequency and high potential electromagnetism and patenting devices for their utilization. It was completed, according to Tesla, by the end of the 1930s. Tesla's theory explained gravity using electrodynamics consisting of transverse waves (to a lesser extent) and longitudinal waves (for the majority). Reminiscent of Mach's principle, Tesla stated in 1925 that:


Nikola Tesla, with Ruðer Boškoviæ's book Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis, sits in front of the spiral coil of his high-frequency transformer at East Houston Street, New York.“ There is no thing endowed with life—from man, who is enslaving the elements, to the nimblest creature—in all this world that does not sway in its turn. Whenever action is born from force, though it be infinitesimal, the cosmic balance is upset and the universal motion results. ”

Tesla was critical of Einstein's relativity work, calling it:

“ ...[a] magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists ...[72] ”

Tesla also argued:

“ I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.[73] ” [en.wikipedia.org]

....Tesla's wave theory of gravity (at first glance) reminds me of modern string theory, which I embrace.... Einstein's views of the curvature of space might have been stated as the curvature of fields, though I think we need to define the word "space".. for example is it useful to define it as an "x,y,z" grid?

If there is a place in the infinite universe devoid of "properties", I can't imagine it.. such properties may be curved within an x,y,z grid. Am I missing the point?.. and what does this have to do with this thread?

Did Tesla theorize about a magnetic field around the earth (later to be confirmed and studied as the (James) Van Allen Belt))? And what are the properties of it? My understanding is the belt consists mostly of solar winds captured by the earth's magnetic field, with a smattering of atoms from upper earth's atmosphere and a minor contribution by cosmic rays.. causing a number of fried satellites over the years, but dealt with by mapping the belt and by spending "limited time in transit through it". [en.wikipedia.org]

btw, looks like even the Hubble isn't spared the radiation of the Van Allen Belt, but it survives.... a series of moon pics by the hubble would be sensational!

NICELY DONE. anyone see the movie the CORE. you will get a good idea about open space and the cosmic ray of the sun.i think i would use a sunscreen with a few 100 billion protection i wonder if walmart has any in stock.you know theres aliens that run walmart.don't believe me smoke a little good weed and visit walmart you will never be the same.freaky. tesla and einstein were drinking buddys .tesla loved his whiskey .then probition(mispelled) came and no whiskey. then he went to cocaine like all the famous people freud ,einstein and etc. until they ban the blow.up for days at a time.you don't believe it was in everything soda cough medicine tonics and you name it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> kratom712 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > tesla was a virgin
>
> Haha, maybe, maybe not?
>
> Regarding Nicola Tesla's work on a "dynamic theory
> of gravity":
>
> "The bulk of the theory was developed between 1892
> and 1894, during the period that he was conducting
> experiments with high frequency and high potential
> electromagnetism and patenting devices for their
> utilization. It was completed, according to Tesla,
> by the end of the 1930s. Tesla's theory explained
> gravity using electrodynamics consisting of
> transverse waves (to a lesser extent) and
> longitudinal waves (for the majority). Reminiscent
> of Mach's principle, Tesla stated in 1925 that:
>
>
> Nikola Tesla, with Ruðer Boškoviæ's book Theoria
> Philosophiae Naturalis, sits in front of the
> spiral coil of his high-frequency transformer at
> East Houston Street, New York.“ There is no thing
> endowed with life—from man, who is enslaving the
> elements, to the nimblest creature—in all this
> world that does not sway in its turn. Whenever
> action is born from force, though it be
> infinitesimal, the cosmic balance is upset and the
> universal motion results. ”
>
> Tesla was critical of Einstein's relativity work,
> calling it:
>
> “ ... magnificent mathematical garb which
> fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the
> underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar
> clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a
> king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they
> are metaphysicists rather than scientists ...[72]
> ”
>
> Tesla also argued:
>
> “ I hold that space cannot be curved, for the
> simple reason that it can have no properties. It
> might as well be said that God has properties. He
> has not, but only attributes and these are of our
> own making. Of properties we can only speak when
> dealing with matter filling the space. To say that
> in the presence of large bodies space becomes
> curved is equivalent to stating that something can
> act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe
> to such a view.[73] ”
> [en.wikipedia.org]
> eories
>
> ....Tesla's wave theory of gravity (at first
> glance) reminds me of modern string theory, which
> I embrace.... Einstein's views of the curvature of
> space might have been stated as the curvature of
> fields, though I think we need to define the word
> "space".. for example is it useful to define it as
> an "x,y,z" grid?
>
> If there is a place in the infinite universe
> devoid of "properties", I can't imagine it.. such
> properties may be curved within an x,y,z grid. Am
> I missing the point?.. and what does this have to
> do with this thread?
>
> Did Tesla theorize about a magnetic field around
> the earth (later to be confirmed and studied as
> the (James) Van Allen Belt))? And what are the
> properties of it? My understanding is the belt
> consists mostly of solar winds captured by the
> earth's magnetic field, with a smattering of atoms
> from upper earth's atmosphere and a minor
> contribution by cosmic rays.. causing a number of
> fried satellites over the years, but dealt with by
> mapping the belt and by spending "limited time in
> transit through it".
> [en.wikipedia.org]
> elt#Impact_on_space_travel
>
> btw, looks like even the Hubble isn't spared the
> radiation of the Van Allen Belt, but it
> survives.... a series of moon pics by the hubble
> would be sensational!

Are you nuts?

Teskla was not a whiskey drinker or cocaine user.

He lived a pretty pure life and eat very little.

I agree Walmart is full of aliens and carts full of Lay chips ;-)

tesla drank whiskey until it was ban.the coke it was in everything until big brother made it illegal. he thought whiskey was a form of medicine.you don't believe read one of the books on tesla. far as the coke i was joking.tesla was my hero virgin and all.yes i think i'm nut's.walmart that's another story.did you see the core?

Tesla was in love with a married girl:
[www.hbci.com]
"There was a two-week period where he simply vanished. No one could find him. Kolman Czito, his trusted technical foreman and machinist feared for Tesla's life. Katherine Underwood Johnson was beside herself with an­guish. She was the wife of a close friend, the only real love of Tesla's life. The fire was meant to kill. It was a message as clear as anyone would need. The assassination attempt failed to kill the intended victim. It certainly did not kill his dreams."

Pic of her here:
[www.teslasociety.com]

great article wwww.hbci.com with all this info. someone is still going to say tesla was wrong about van allen .you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Kratom,

No is the Core a movie?

Still don't believe this wasn't a Hoax?

[www.moonmovie.com]

Oh,so you have to purchase the videos?
None of the videos run on that site.

Still bogus IMO.
WE WENT!

Look,I regularly observe the moon in a 13" reflector telescope,which on a good night has a resolution of about 1 mile on the moon surface,if not less.And I can tell you that the craters and rilles and other surface features I see match exactly with the moon orbit footage from the Apollo 11 mission,which shows such features in amazing close up detail.There would be no way to obtain those kinds of close up images from any earth based camera,especially in 1969.So I believe that we at least were able to achieve orbit of the moon.And if we went that far,we might have just as well went all the way.....a landing.

Brian



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2008 10:38AM by Raw1228.

Raw 128,

Yes you can purchase videos if you like this is up to you.

Can you see the stars through your telescope from Earth?

Yes

Can you see stars in any of the Nasa Photos?

No

Kind of funny isn't it?

Keep on believing the lie.

globalresult Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kratom,
>
> No is the Core a movie?

the movie the core .is about the magnetic core in the center of the earth stopped spinning.if that happens all hell breaks loose.in the movie they explain what would happen to the earth without a magnetic field to protect us.one thing hubble and the other object are within the 1000 mile of protection.you go into space with out any protect and it bye bye.hubble is safe its in orbit.put hubble in orbit around moon it will fry it might last one hour or one year.the only way to know is to do it.i know one thing the first thing on the moon will be a walmart.

Globalresult,
Again,we have the issue of photography and exposures.
A basic knowledge of photography says that the difference of light levels between a bright foreground object and backround stars is so great that the film simply doesnt pick up the stars.
Adjust the exposure and shutter to pick up the stars,and all the foreground objects would simply be bright globs.

Anyone know what I am getting at?

The stars were there,but exposure issues made them not visible.

Brian

BS

Doesn't pick up stars.

Ok
Well BS on you.
Was just trying to have an intelligent debate.
If you are capable.

LoL

O.K. go outside now in the dark take a photo in the forest and see if the trees don't show up.

Or maybe that has to do with lighting.

lol

I didn't believe the stars part either but then when I looked at pics of the space station in orbit the stars don't show up either.

Pic of Mir space station with lots of sky visible:
[www.dlr.de]

global you`re not listening LOL
the trees aren`t bright objects and don`t need the same shutter speed
instead of downplaying brian why don`t you do some research on basic photography and shutter speeds and light and see if you learn something.
maybe he`s right and maybe he`s wrong but it`s definately wrong to just dismiss something/someone if you don`t have the knowledge to back it up.
you have the knowledge of what you`ve learned through your research on the moon and what not, do you have the knowledge on photography?
people will be much more inclined to listen to you if you show some tangible intellectual evidence and not just dismiss their views as unreasonable or stupid.
i know i have more respect for peeps that can debate/teach without them making me feel like i was/am an idiot
just a thought
patty

[blog.wired.com]

Several times over the past month I've seen people in the comments section here asking why stars aren't visible in photos taken from the International Space Station, from the space shuttle, or from lunar satellites.
This objection is one of the prime issues raised by people who claim to believe the original moon landings were hoaxes. But put that aside – it's a valid question, and remains a puzzling one for many who are unfamiliar with the details.
The answer turns out to be simple. On Earth we're used to seeing stars brilliantly dot the nighttime sky, and in space, the sky always appears black as night. But the analogy turns out not to hold.
Our daytime sky is bright because of the diffusion of light through the atmosphere. In space, or on the moon, there's no atmosphere to spread the light around, and the sky will appear black at midday – but that doesn't mean it's not just as bright. An astronaut looking out the window of the space station will see just as much direct sunlight, if not more, than I will looking out my apartment window on a cloudless day.
If I want to take a picture out my sunny window, I'll naturally use a fast exposure and a narrow aperture setting on my camera, which lets only a short burst of light in – a little like the way the pupils of the eye contract in sunlight, so the bright light isn't so painful.
Naturally, the astronauts or satellites in space are going to do the same thing when taking pictures of sunlit objects, since it's just as bright up there. Fast exposure times means they can get good pictures of the bright Earth or lunar surface, but it also means no stars in the picture. Even in space, stars are relatively dim, and simply don't produce enough light to show up in photos set for bright sunlight.

the following are from various websites i didn`t write down the addresses...love google!

Things in space (in the vicinity of the earth or moon) are illuminated by the sun, so they're just as brightly lit as something you'd see in the daytime on the surface of the earth. In particular, they are thousands of times brighter than stars. No camera (that I know of) is sensitive enough to capture that full range from very bright to very dim in a single shot. In order to capture the bright objects (like a space shuttle or a lunar lander) with the correct exposure (so they don't look washed out), the camera must be set with a small aperture and short exposure time, and with those settings the stars do not produce enough light to expose the film.

The same reason why we can't see them during the day on earth . . . the sun is extremely bright. However, if you were to travel to the back side of the moon, with no atmosphere distorting your view and using it as a shadow to block the sun . . . WOW! It would be the most amazing display of the universe you've ever seen.

I did miss one important fact in my oriniginal answer. Yes, the people talking about exposure are correct as well. Here are a list of things that factor into your question.

1. Illuminosity of surrounding objects.
2. White Balance of the capture device.
3. Focus of the capture device.
4. Lens type of the capture device.
5. Atmosphere

he answer is that yes, if you pointed one of the cameras in apollo up, 
and opened the shutter for long enough, you would get pictures of 
stars. 
But the objects being filmed are much brighter than stars, so they wash 
out the fainter stars. 
It's like trying to film fireflies in the daytime, it just doesn't work. 
(ignoring for the moment that they don't flash in the day)
: So far I've only seen one photo that contains background stars 
: (excluding all pictures from the Hubble ST) at www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/ 
: taken by Apollo15. The sky in that picture is filled with stars, which 
: is drastically different from all other photos.

Raw1228 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Globalresult,
> Again,we have the issue of photography and
> exposures.
> A basic knowledge of photography says that the
> difference of light levels between a bright
> foreground object and backround stars is so great
> that the film simply doesnt pick up the stars.
> Adjust the exposure and shutter to pick up the
> stars,and all the foreground objects would simply
> be bright globs.
>
> Anyone know what I am getting at?
>
> The stars were there,but exposure issues made them
> not visible.
>
> Brian

Yes, precisely.. the film type, shutter speed, aperture and focal point all affect what the film will pick up. The greater the contrast of light and shadow the greater the challenge to photograph an object.

Kratom, the "heroic virgin" is a concept that I imagine Nicola Tesla was well aquainted with by virtue of having an orthodox priest as a dad.. and it would be special if he lived like that.... with all the rumors surrounding Tesla it's hard to know the truth.

Dewey, just noticed your post, nice!

Yes,
Just trying to put some technical knowledge into a subject that has been controversial for years....why arent there any stars?

Take any 35mm slr camera,set it up under a night sky,set the opening to max,and make a 1 hr exposure,and you will get star trails that look like bright burned in circles on the film.Now....if you wanted to photo a slightly brighter foreground object,set the exposure down so your foreground object will come out half decent,and you will find the stars have disappeared from your picture.

Its all exposure folks.

Been there,done that.

Good evening to all.

Brian



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2008 03:01AM by Raw1228.

I can see some variables but common pitch black in the background.

My friend says he h=knows it is not a hoax because way back when kids used to pick up the radio signal and there was no way you could fake a signal from the moon

We went.

I just got back, and they have Wal Mart, its so cool everyone there takes
things lighty,the gravitys sucks here.

that settles it!

to the moon

to build a greenhouse

to grow produce for Wal Mart